Skip to Content

Instrukcja korzystania z Biblioteki

Serwisy:

Ukryty Internet | Wyszukiwarki specjalistyczne tekstów i źródeł naukowych | Translatory online | Encyklopedie i słowniki online

Translator:

Kosmos
Astronomia Astrofizyka
Inne

Kultura
Sztuka dawna i współczesna, muzea i kolekcje

Metoda
Metodologia nauk, Matematyka, Filozofia, Miary i wagi, Pomiary

Materia
Substancje, reakcje, energia
Fizyka, chemia i inżynieria materiałowa

Człowiek
Antropologia kulturowa Socjologia Psychologia Zdrowie i medycyna

Wizje
Przewidywania Kosmologia Religie Ideologia Polityka

Ziemia
Geologia, geofizyka, geochemia, środowisko przyrodnicze

Życie
Biologia, biologia molekularna i genetyka

Cyberprzestrzeń
Technologia cyberprzestrzeni, cyberkultura, media i komunikacja

Działalność
Wiadomości | Gospodarka, biznes, zarządzanie, ekonomia

Technologie
Budownictwo, energetyka, transport, wytwarzanie, technologie informacyjne

Comments for Libertarian Papers

The Libertarian way of raising children is one of graduated majority. A child is granted as much freedom and self-determination as he or she can maintain.

http://libertarianpapers.org/podcast/podcast-kukathas-two-constructions-libertarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-51729 2014/07/17 - 14:39

[…] In fact, the reason property rights are more fundamental than, and a concept upon which “aggression” depends, is that the only reason there is a need for property rights is the possibility of conflict, and this arises only because we live in a world of scarce (rivalrous) resources. As Mises explains, humans act, which means to employ certain scarce means to achieve certain chosen ends. The scarce means are physical resources in the world that our scientific knowledge informs us are causally efficacious in interfering with the world, in changing the course of events to achieve some forecasted state in the future that is desired more than what is otherwise predicted by the actor to come about. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains in Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization, […]

http://libertarianpapers.org/article/1-hoppe-private-common-and-public-property/comment-page-1/#comment-25150 2014/05/09 - 14:09

It’s the best time to make a few plans for the long run and it is time to be happy. I have learn this post and if I could I wish to recommend you some attention-grabbing issues or advice. Maybe you can write subsequent articles regarding this article. I wish to learn even more issues approximately it!

http://libertarianpapers.org/podcast/the-state-is-an-enemy-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-24566 2014/05/06 - 21:18

Why is W. Block so harsh on E. Ostrom’s work. After all she is using methodological individualism to explain her main ideas. He is doing no good to Keynes either but that is another matter. All she (Ostrom) is saying is that in certain cases individuals can credibly commit (fear of punishment and similiar) not to cheat. What is needed for this is the right kind of institutions to be in place (ones that enable monitoring, punishing, decision making). I’m not a hard core libertarian but the idea that free individuals (after some amount of time needed to get used to one another) are able to make decisions that affect each of them in a way that makes none of them worse off doesn’t contradict libertarianism. Actually i believe that it should be at the core of it and it would reflect the enlightened nature of individuals that would make a better society.

http://libertarianpapers.org/article/21-block-review-of-ostroms-governing-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-12831 2014/03/14 - 13:46

[…] and the Free State Project), as well as the idea of subscription-based patrol and restitution advanced by Guillory and Tinsley, or Stephen Fairfax’s ingenious proposal presented at Austrian Scholars Conference 2010, […]

http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/alford-prize-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-9817 2014/03/02 - 05:43

CITE THIS ARTICLE AS: Edward W. Younkins, “Human Nature, Flourishing, and Happiness: Toward a Synthesis of Aristotelianism, Austrian Economics, Positive Psychology, and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism,” <em>Libertarian Papers</em> 2, 35 (2010).

http://libertarianpapers.org/article/35-younkins-human-nature-flourishing-and-happiness/comment-page-1/#comment-9346 2014/02/24 - 15:05

Presenting both abstract and conclusions, or summary, might motivate more to download and read the article.

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/11-oneill-block-inchoate-crime/comment-page-1/#comment-7996 2013/12/21 - 11:21

[…] this very elementary mistake, see Block, Walter E. 2011. Review essay of Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge […]

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/21-block-review-of-ostroms-governing-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-7977 2013/10/25 - 12:11

[…] this very elementary mistake, see Block, Walter E. 2011. Review essay of Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge […]

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/21-block-review-of-ostroms-governing-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-7975 2013/10/25 - 12:11

Hey this is kinda of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code
with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/5-carreiro-dao-against-the-tyrant/comment-page-1/#comment-7971 2013/08/23 - 02:07

Hey this is kinda of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code
with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/5-carreiro-dao-against-the-tyrant/comment-page-1/#comment-7970 2013/08/23 - 02:07

I currently do not have the time to read your entire article, but I have read about various schemes to protect imagination in the past, and I find it unconvincing, for several major reasons:
First, I am not convinced that copying is theft. If I had a book, and loaned it to ten friends who then read it, we would accept this as normal…yet, if I copied that same book ten times, and gave each friend a copy, it would be considered “theft”. Why should the two be considered different? Yet we check out book from the library all the time. Indeed, a few minutes ago I checked the local libraries for “Alongside Night”, and could not find it, so I won’t be reading it soon…but if I downloaded it from the internet instead of checked it out from the library, would it really have made a difference to you, one way or the other?
Second, your “logorights” seems to rely a little too much on the labor theory of value. Just because I put blood, sweat, and tears into something, and have a need to feed my family and pay my medical bills (oh, how I have that need), doesn’t mean that I have the right to get money for what I do!
Third, you are eager to conflate malicious fraud with that of sharing ideas and information, and that disturbs me: you are implying that, if I were to copy Hamlet to give to friends (without trying to pay the heirs of Shakespeare for the privilege), it would be just as evil as copying a deed and a signature to sell someone’s house.
Fourth, how many of your ideas are *truly* your ideas? And how many of those ideas–even ones, or perhaps especially ones, where you spent years working on–are the synthesis of the hundreds of ideas that are around you, in conversations, and books, and television, and so forth? To lay claim on your work as your own, then, denies the contributions of all these people–most of whom, of necessity, will be anonymous.
But then, I have background in two fields that have prospered in spite of the lack of copyrights: open source computing and mathematics. While I cannot prosper by offering to sell source code or theorems, mechanisms are certainly in place as alternative sources of income! (As much as I wish I could just work on mathematics, and writing, for that matter, full-time, without worrying about money, I do not consider it a “right” to be able to do so, any more than I consider it my “right” to play video games all day without worrying about money.)
If there’s one thing I learned from mathematics, it’s that you homestead ideas by study and immersion in them. Thus, you own “topology” after you take classes, read books and papers, and prove theorems and solve problems–some of which may even be new! or at least unpublished–and the more topology you absorb, the more you own. Similarly, you own a book you read–it becomes a part of you–and each time you read it, you lay claim to it a little more, particularly if it changes the way you act and talk and think. Any attempt to try to restrict this (particularly when it comes to sharing ideas with others) is a restriction on liberty itself!

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/12-mcelroy-contra-copyright-again/comment-page-1/#comment-7961 2013/08/17 - 18:31

I would also add that, if we *could* copy, or just produce, gold with ease, then gold would be completely worthless: everyone who wanted closets full of the stuff would be able to get it. Indeed, if it were a significant waste product of another process, we’d be paying people to take gold to get rid of it!

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/12-mcelroy-contra-copyright-again/comment-page-1/#comment-7960 2013/08/17 - 18:31

I would also add that, if we *could* copy, or just produce, gold with ease, then gold would be completely worthless: everyone who wanted closets full of the stuff would be able to get it. Indeed, if it were a significant waste product of another process, we’d be paying people to take gold to get rid of it!

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/12-mcelroy-contra-copyright-again/comment-page-1/#comment-7960 2013/08/17 - 18:31

And here I thought this debate was dead. I’m sad to see Mr. Wiśniewski turn up again, just to leave.
To just throw out one objection, Wiśniewski’s assertion that a pregnancy contract must last nine months on “biological considerations” is wrongheaded. He arrives at it through a logical analogy to a false premise: that acceptable coffee prices are dictated by cultural convention.
The billion-dollar cup of coffee is void not because of culture. It is void because the customer did not consent to it. He did consent to something, but it was not what the cafe was offering. On the other hand, the cafe consented to something as well, but it was not what the customer was requesting.
They attempted to enter into a contract, with the terms implicit rather than explicit; the parties’ separate understanding of the contract was different (perhaps I should say, too different), so the contract was void.
To relate this back to the pregnancy, the length of contractual obligation cannot be determined by biological considerations, either. The contract’s terms are dictated by the parties, period.

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/6-wisniewski-abortion-libertarianism-and-evictionism/comment-page-1/#comment-7732 2013/07/02 - 18:28

[...] “The Definition of Inflation According to Mises: Implications for the Debate on Free Banking” – Via Libretarian Papers – The discussion of what is and what is not inflation has become central among the Austrian economists in their debate between free banking with fractional reserves versus banking with 100-percent reserve. Many Austrians also turn to the writings of Mises to find out what the dean of Austrian Economics thought about inflation, but there is no agreement on the interpretation of his writings either. This article tries to contribute to the interpretation of Mises’ concept of inflation. [...]

http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/43-cachanosky-definition-of-inflation-according-to-mises/comment-page-1/#comment-7662 2013/04/25 - 17:12

An excellent blueprint for a conflict-free future that I dare to improve only slightly.
Prof Hoppe suggests a de-socialization procedure whereby every alleged government aggressor is formally tried in a court of law and “if sentenced and convicted, not only be excluded from obtaining any public property whatsoever, but also possibly be
handed much harsher punishment (such as having his throat cut).” This bloody scenario, ironically, is a powerful motivator for government aggressors currently exercising power to fight relentlessly against Hoppe’s impeccably correct logic of a private law society.
Alternatively, I recommend a scenario that might entice many thousand of the more open-minded government aggressors to give up their nefarious ways and join ranks with we libertarians implementing de-socialization to an eagerly waiting post-collapse world. I propose mass clemency for all former government aggressors and their apologists, including current and former treasury secretaries, CIA prison directors and David Frum. Far from exposing them to frightening capital punishment trials and barring them from public property ownership, I recommend that all existing and former government employees be granted all public property titles in lieu of current paychecks and retirement benefit plans. Yes, Nancy Pelosi and her millions of fellow public servants would become the new owners of every federal highway, national park and backscatter x-ray machine. The condition of this mass clemency and property grant would be the mass signing of a libertarian contract ensuring a private law society. And if you’re wondering how long these property titles will remain in these dirty hands, take a look at how fast Edgar Bronfman Jr. lost his family’s fortune. Before long, former government employees will be selling their highway shares etc. to savy entrepreneurs and Rothbard will be smiling down on us.

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/1-hoppe-private-common-and-public-property/comment-page-1/#comment-7628 2013/04/12 - 20:24

Congratulations to the editors for this achievement. It may seem silly for an anti-government journal to get excited over recognition from a government bureaucracy, but it really does show how far the journal has come in just a few years.

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/libertarian-papers-ranked-a-by-excellence-in-research-for-australia-eraaustralian-research-council-arc/comment-page-1/#comment-7598 2013/04/10 - 16:48

Excellent (direct and overall) defense of libertarianism by Prof. Block. That Klein and Clark even proposed this monstrous loophole to excuse the initiation of violence is very troubling. A KC supporter might respond to Orwell, “Yes, the boot may be stomping on a human face forever. But the boot is actually stepping forward to a great advancement of overall liberty for others.” No thanks.

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/4-block-klein-and-clark-are-mistaken/comment-page-1/#comment-7594 2013/04/10 - 16:48

[...] Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory. Also Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization”, sec. I, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, ch. 2, and The Great Fiction, chs. 2–4 et pass. [...]

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/1-hoppe-private-common-and-public-property/comment-page-1/#comment-7592 2013/04/08 - 21:21

[...] Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory). Also see Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization”, sec. I, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, ch. 2, and The Great Fiction, chs. 2–4 et [...]

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/1-hoppe-private-common-and-public-property/comment-page-1/#comment-7591 2013/04/08 - 21:21

Theoretically, you could undermine the gang by creating counterfeit money and giving it, proportional to savings, to all non-gang members.
Great paper, by the way.

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/3-davidson-countering-blocks-private-counterfeiter/comment-page-1/#comment-7558 2013/03/28 - 19:02

I agree with your analogy. The State is a violent gang. But I don’t agree that the right way to “undermine this gang’s fiat money” is to engage in private counterfeiting. My argument is that counterfeiting, even of fiat money, is immoral. The reason is this: Even though the use of fiat money by the government and its minions is illicit, its use by those not involved with the state — i.e. innocent people who are not a part of the “gang” — is legitimate. And the private counterfeiter steals from these innocent people. He commits the same act as the government. This hardly makes him a hero.

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/3-davidson-countering-blocks-private-counterfeiter/comment-page-1/#comment-7536 2013/03/25 - 00:22

The US government actively commits fraud about the value of a dollar. Refer to http://www.govmint.com/search/Gold-Eagles/02GCEA/62. How can you explain that the first item is described by them as “$5″ and can be purchased for “$229″(today, anyway)?
I think Block’s position is better understood with the following thought experiment: imagine a violent gang of thugs took over your neighborhood. They began to print slips of paper with the gang leaders face on it and tell you that all protection services they provide you must be paid in this currency. Would you not agree that brave souls who worked to undermine this gang’s fiat money are heroes?

http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/3-davidson-countering-blocks-private-counterfeiter/comment-page-1/#comment-7535 2013/03/25 - 00:22